Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Commission Candidates debate at the Chamber of Commerce; Chuck Jones withdraws from 9th Race

The candidates in the 1st and 9th District Commission races participated in a forum/debate sponsored by the Chamber PAC and held at the Chamber building.

The 1st candidates seemed to have a little bit of the "I agree with Governor Bush" syndrome going on, with little to separate them. On the few questions that produced discernible disagreement, I think I would have to with Garland. For example, Lowry trashed college students in his answer on rental registration, which he basically seemed to support, and he said he wanted "no new bars" downtown in response to a question about whether local government should be involved in regulating the daylife/nightlife balance downtown. Garland, on the other hand, opposed rental registration and suggested existing ordinances as the means to deal with rowdy, messy college students living in our neighborhoods, and didn't think it was government's job to tell business owners what kind of businesses to put downtown. I happen to agree on both accounts.

Then came the 9th debate. The day began with four candidates, but it was announced by moderator Tim Bryant at the beginning of the debate that the field had been narrowed to three by the resignation of Chuck Jones from the race (Mr. Jones reportedly phoned his opponents personally earlier in the evening to inform them of his resignation as well). Alvin Sheats chose not to participate, and so only Kelly Girch and Ed Vaughn took part in the debate. Both trumpeted their experience, Girch as an educator and Vaughn as a city planner and government contractor, as a reason to give them the job. Vaughn challenged the Chamber on why it had not done more to help downtown businesses, who in Vaughn's words have been getting "hosed" for the past four years under the current commission.

There are several more debates scheduled during the month of October for both the commission races and the mayor's race; it's late and so I don't remember dates right now, but I'll perhaps do another post with those later.

15 comments:

Chuck said...

I thought it was more dignified to call Kelly and Ed and Alvin personally to tell them before I released the news to the general public. Yes, due to another opportunity I have been invited to pursue, I have decided to withdraw from the race.

I believe strongly that this new opportunity, which will be made public in the weeks to come, will enable me to accomplish my goals of standing up for the rights of students in the community much more effectively.

hillary said...

Girtz. Not Girch.

james garland said...

Gee, thanks. While we (by that I mean me and the bulk of the local political blogosphere) may approach issues from differing perspectives, there are many areas in which we can find common ground and others on which we can respectfully agree to disagree. As I said last night, reasonable people can disagree on policy.

DoubleDawgDareYa said...

Oops. Sorry, Kelly.

Jmac said...

I've gotten a very strong 'I can be more States McCarter than States McCarter' vibe from Lowry.

That's good for some folks. Bad for others.

Anonymous said...

I think Chuck wasn't man enough to debate.

UGAdemocrat said...

I agree with that assesment. Chuck's comments on other posts and his out-of-line thoughts and references to Democrats would have only spelled disaster. He didn't have it in him...

Chuck said...

What out of line thoughts are you referring to? Conservative thoughts? So conservatism is now "out of line"? Interesting. Thought police in action.

You can read my withdrawal statement here, Anonymous Al. http://www.electchuckjones.com

Anonymous said...

The left screams for freedom of thought and freedom of speech. But they are as hypocritical as anyone. The moment a conservative voice speaks up or a hint of Christianity appears they are screaming for censorship-through-separation (of Church and State).

Just an observation.

Jmac said...

I don't think Chuck 'wasn't man enough to debate' (and I'm really interested in seeing what exactly this new opportunity is), but I do agree that he would have to walk more lightly in an organized and formal debate.

So don't feel like you have to play the 'I'm a conservative, so I'm a victim' card here Chuck. I think it just means you speak freely and openly, which isn't necessarily a good thing sometimes. The forum provided by blogs lends itself to sort of flippant and casual responses, and that doesn't necessarily translate well to more structured political debates.

UGAdemocrat said...

No but comments like Hitlery are offensive and unnecessary in American politics. That's what I'm talking about. I would love to have discussions on Christianity, I studied theology in school and am very faithful. I'm saying your out of line comments include name calling and references to absurd comparisons that have no place in the debate of issues and thoughts.

Thank you very much. We don't need more people out there to divide us (republicans did enough of that with the redistricting) we need people who will be in these debates and talk about the issues and their solutions. Let's focus on that and not name calling and I'll have no problem, deal?

Anonymous said...

It's been a while since we've seen a "Republicans invented redistricting" comment. Come on, folks, drop that one. Or at least go back and read some state history pre-1995. I know you were in diapers then but you might be surprised at what you find.

To save you time, I'll give you some key word searches. Tom Murphy, Charles Walker, George Busbee, Ernest Vandiver (uh oh, that one's gettin close to home), and Lester Maddox. I'll omit Roy Barnes because it's too easy. Enjoy.

Chuck said...

You wrote: Let's focus on that and not name calling and I'll have no problem, deal?

Tell it to Elton Dodson.

UGAdemocrat said...

I will, I'm not Elton Dodson, nor does he speak for me. I am opposed to it no matter who is doing it, didn't mean for it to sound personal, it was more of a general complaint to politicians...

Chuck said...

Ok I understand. No harm no foul. I do agree with you about keeping the discussion on an adult level.